We all have our own ideas about which news media is more partisan and which is hyping up issues more. Anyone can argue opinions, but what about when they make up facts?

I just wanted to know what people thought about all of the conservative media reporting that Obama's trip was going to cost the government $2 BILLION dollars for 10 days, yet no one can actually substantiate where they got these numbers from.

We all have our own ideas about which news media is more partisan and which is hyping up issues more. Anyone can argue opinions, but what about when they make up facts?

I just wanted to know what people thought about all of the conservative media reporting that Obama's trip was going to cost the government $2 BILLION dollars for 10 days, yet no one can actually substantiate where they got these numbers from.

Making up "facts" is just bad reporting.

1. As far as I know, this information was reported by conservative bloggers.2. It was reported by an Indian media outlet before conservative bloggers reported on it. It wasn't made up by conservatives out of thin air.

1. As far as I know, this information was reported by conservative bloggers.2. It was reported by an Indian media outlet before conservative bloggers reported on it. It wasn't made up by conservatives out of thin air.

The $2b number was directly from Glen Beck who extrapolated from all of the previous sources. Even a Republican Congressman tried to use these numbers as facts.

My point, which is valid to both parties and sides of the media, is that before people in the news media, or elected officials, go around reporting "facts" that they should actually check their sources. Instead they go around hyping misinformation to stir the pot and get their partisaned followers in an uproar.

1. As far as I know, this information was reported by conservative bloggers.2. It was reported by an Indian media outlet before conservative bloggers reported on it. It wasn't made up by conservatives out of thin air.

The $2b number was directly from Glen Beck who extrapolated from all of the previous sources. Even a Republican Congressman tried to use these numbers as facts.

My point, which is valid to both parties and sides of the media, is that before people in the news media, or elected officials, go around reporting "facts" that they should actually check their sources. Instead they go around hyping misinformation to stir the pot and get their partisaned followers in an uproar.

Should Obama, Reid and Pelosi have checked their sources before announcing health care wouldn't increase premiums and increase the deficit? Seems they didn't offer facts.

Should Obama, Reid and Pelosi have checked their sources before announcing health care wouldn't increase premiums and increase the deficit? Seems they didn't offer facts.

We all know it is a joke, but they had numbers from the CBO "confirming" that it would reduce the deficit.

Regardless, one can always argue that a future event is an opinion. Presenting information on things that are happening or have happned as fact without any credible source is unprofessional. Especially for a "news" outlet.

Should Obama, Reid and Pelosi have checked their sources before announcing health care wouldn't increase premiums and increase the deficit? Seems they didn't offer facts.

We all know it is a joke, but they had numbers from the CBO "confirming" that it would reduce the deficit.

Regardless, one can always argue that a future event is an opinion. Presenting information on things that are happening or have happned as fact without any credible source is unprofessional. Especially for a "news" outlet.

The numbers from the CBO are based on what is written into the bill.

If a bill says "this will cost $5", then the CBO has to base their estimates off that.

They don't take into consideration possible overruns, inflation, reworks etc. They take the bill at face value.

If a bill doesn't express any monetary value, then according to the CBO the bill would cost taxpayers nothing.

The $2b number was directly from Glen Beck who extrapolated from all of the previous sources. Even a Republican Congressman tried to use these numbers as facts.

Glen Beck is a talking head, not a journalist (not to mention kinda creepy). I feel sorry for those that can't distinguish.

That being said, he is not the one that came up with those numbers. As I stated before, it was reported by an Indian media outlet. Read below.

Quote:

Actually it's a figure that came from just one source, a news agency in India, relying on an anonymous source. It was then repeated thousands more times in the blogosphere and over conservative airwaves.

The claim that the U.S. would be spending "a whopping $200 million per day" on Obama's visit to Mumbai, India, originated in a report from the news agency Press Trust of India. It was an estimate attributed anonymously to "a top official of the Maharashtra Government privy to the arrangements for the high-profile visit." Maharashtra is a state located in western India.

Here's what the story said:

"The huge amount of around $200 million would be spent on security, stay and other aspects of the Presidential visit," a top official of the Maharashtra Government privy to the arrangements for the high-profile visit said.

About 3,000 people including Secret Service agents, U.S. government officials and journalists would accompany the President. Several officials from the White House and U.S. security agencies are already here for the past one week with helicopters, a ship and high-end security instruments.

I understand that their is the FOX news side and the FOX opinion side. I really do.

However, Beck and Hannity both reported this (and come on, it was so obviously BS that it is embarassing) and at some point, doesn't FOX News have to take some responsibility? It would be nice if they made their hosts issue retractions for reporting such crap. I would love for Beck and Hannity to have to look into the camera and say, I reported false information to you, the viewers. I apologize for the misinformation."

I understand that their is the FOX news side and the FOX opinion side. I really do.

However, Beck and Hannity both reported this (and come on, it was so obviously BS that it is embarassing) and at some point, doesn't FOX News have to take some responsibility? It would be nice if they made their hosts issue retractions for reporting such crap. I would love for Beck and Hannity to have to look into the camera and say, I reported false information to you, the viewers. I apologize for the misinformation."

Sure, as soon as Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann apologize to Michelle Bachmann for how they insulted her on election night...

I understand that their is the FOX news side and the FOX opinion side. I really do.

However, Beck and Hannity both reported this (and come on, it was so obviously BS that it is embarassing) and at some point, doesn't FOX News have to take some responsibility? It would be nice if they made their hosts issue retractions for reporting such crap. I would love for Beck and Hannity to have to look into the camera and say, I reported false information to you, the viewers. I apologize for the misinformation."

Why? MSNBC does the same thing with leftist spin. Matthews and Maddow haven't had to offer retractions for lying.

What I feel sorry for is those who believe Fox News has any journalistic integrity whatsoever.

You lose all credibility when you make that statement.

Opinions are opinions. Insulting someone is unprofessional, but it is opinion. In the long run, it limits your options as a reporter because people will not take your interviews.

However, incorrect facts provide a lack of professional credibility. Refusing to apologize for it is a lack of jounalistic integrity. Period. And when you put "news" in your name, the expectation is that anything and everything you do is about reporting the truth.

If I lose my credibility with you for making a reasonable argument, that's fine by me.

However, incorrect facts provide a lack of professional credibility. Refusing to apologize for it is a lack of jounalistic integrity. Period. And when you put "news" in your name, the expectation is that anything and everything you do is about reporting the truth.

You said Beck was the one that reported this. Where did you see that Beck said this?

Here is a transcript of what he actually said on his show:

Quote:

GLENN BECK, HOST: I saw a story today where something is very, very wrong. And I don't know what it is yet, and the media is completely missing the real story. I can't tell you what the real story is yet, but there are too many unanswered questions.

The president's upcoming trip to India, and other points from there. Report came out that has made rounds on the Internet about the high cost of this trip. Some people say that it is up to $2 billion for 10 days. Is that true? I don't know!

The media is bickering back and forth about what the real cost is and how many ships will be there — 34 warships possibly. I don't know.

Two hundred million dollars a day while in India. I don't know.

The president has blocked off 800 hotel rooms. Do we still — do even know if he's travelling with 3,000 people? Do we know if that's true?

No one knows any of the details of this trip, the real cost of the trip. One thing we can say for certain is, it's going to be quite expensive.

I want to make this extraordinarily clear. I have been against this trip since I've heard about it just a few weeks ago because I don't believe the president — I don't believe the president is listening to the Secret Service. I know enough Secret Service people to know that they take his safety and every president's safety extraordinarily serious. And there are too many things wrong with this trip.

You protect the president at all costs. I don't care if it costs them $10 trillion. Mumbai is a very dangerous place. Massive terror attack — only two years ago, 166 were killed. More 300 wounded during the three-day rampage. The president is staying at that hotel.

Mumbai: The US would be spending a whopping $200 million (Rs. 900 crore approx) per day on President Barack Obama's visit to the city.

"The huge amount of around $200 million would be spent on security, stay and other aspects of the Presidential visit," a top official of the Maharashtra Government privy to the arrangements for the high-profile visit said.

About 3,000 people including Secret Service agents, US government officials and journalists would accompany the President. Several officials from the White House and US security agencies are already here for the past one week with helicopters, a ship and high-end security instruments.

"Except for personnel providing immediate security to the President, the US officials may not be allowed to carry weapons. The state police is competent to take care of the security measures and they would be piloting the Presidential convoy," the official said on condition of anonymity.

Navy and Air Force has been asked by the state government to intensify patrolling along the Mumbai coastline and its airspace during Obama's stay. The city's airspace will be closed half-an-hour before the President's arrival for all aircraft barring those carrying the US delegation.

The personnel from SRPF, Force One, besides the NSG contingent stationed here would be roped in for the President's security, the official said.

The area from Hotel Taj, where Obama and his wife Michelle would stay, to Shikra helipad in Colaba would be cordoned off completely during the movement of the President.

By the way, during the 2008 Presidential Election, John McCain said this:

Quote:

Last month, at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, a crowd member asked McCain about a Bush statement that troops could stay in Iraq for 50 years.

"Maybe 100," McCain replied. "As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it's fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day."

What I feel sorry for is those who believe Fox News has any journalistic integrity whatsoever.

You lose all credibility when you make that statement.

Opinions are opinions. Insulting someone is unprofessional, but it is opinion. In the long run, it limits your options as a reporter because people will not take your interviews.

However, incorrect facts provide a lack of professional credibility. Refusing to apologize for it is a lack of jounalistic integrity. Period. And when you put "news" in your name, the expectation is that anything and everything you do is about reporting the truth.

If I lose my credibility with you for making a reasonable argument, that's fine by me.

You didn't make a reasonable argument. You took evidence of a talk show host saying what he heard from Indian news outlets. If Brett Baier or Shepard Smith broke the news as legit from a source during nightly news hours you'd have a point.

Trying to stir up people from the other side of the political spectrum, which was clearly your intent, by making false implications is unprofessional. By your standards Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz and every person at MSNBC should apologize a thousand times over for the nonsense they've said. Add Michael Moore, Bill Maher, Rush Limbaugh, Don Imus and others to the list. Whats the connection...they are talk show hosts and opinion people, not real journalists.

You didn't make a reasonable argument. You took evidence of a talk show host saying what he heard from Indian news outlets. If Brett Baier or Shepard Smith broke the news as legit from a source during nightly news hours you'd have a point.

Trying to stir up people from the other side of the political spectrum, which was clearly your intent, by making false implications is unprofessional. By your standards Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz and every person at MSNBC should apologize a thousand times over for the nonsense they've said. Add Michael Moore, Bill Maher, Rush Limbaugh, Don Imus and others to the list. Whats the connection...they are talk show hosts and opinion people, not real journalists.

This is the problem. News companies need to stop hiding behind the fact that they are opinion shows. The political debate and discourse COULD ONLY GET BETTER if we actually wanted higher standards out of our opinion shows. Let them all use the same facts, but come to different interpretations of them. But when they start making up crap, that needs to be stopped by the network. What is wrong with that?

By the way, how many people watch the opinion shows vs the hard news shows?

You didn't make a reasonable argument. You took evidence of a talk show host saying what he heard from Indian news outlets. If Brett Baier or Shepard Smith broke the news as legit from a source during nightly news hours you'd have a point.

Trying to stir up people from the other side of the political spectrum, which was clearly your intent, by making false implications is unprofessional. By your standards Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz and every person at MSNBC should apologize a thousand times over for the nonsense they've said. Add Michael Moore, Bill Maher, Rush Limbaugh, Don Imus and others to the list. Whats the connection...they are talk show hosts and opinion people, not real journalists.

This is the problem. News companies need to stop hiding behind the fact that they are opinion shows. The political debate and discourse COULD ONLY GET BETTER if we actually wanted higher standards out of our opinion shows. Let them all use the same facts, but come to different interpretations of them. But when they start making up crap, that needs to be stopped by the network. What is wrong with that?

By the way, how many people watch the opinion shows vs the hard news shows?

Again, every channel has its hard news hour or two in the evening. Some have an extra hour or so during the day. MSNBC, Fox, CNN...they all have both.

And on that same note NBC, CBS and ABC would be hard pressed to prove that Brian Williams, Diane Sawyer and (shudder) Katie Couric aren't injecting their own biases into how they present the news. Just because they aren't cable news doesn't mean they are immune from misrepresenting things. Heck it got Dan Rather fired. And their morning shows, the Today Show, Good Morning America, and even (shudder again) the View talk about issues people are interested in. It doesn't mean the company in general isn't a news company.

This woman interjects her worldview into everything, and it's usually leaning towards sympathetic towards radical Islamists... or at least indifferent...

We could probably sit here all night and list people. This anti-Fox, anti-anyone who watches them nonsense is getting old. Why can't people accept that there are differing opinions and that different does not mean wrong?

For example: "Report came out that has made rounds on the Internet about Bush having an affair with an unnamed White house staffer. Some people say that he paid for an abortion. Is that true? I don't know!"

Don't forget the amount of people who watch them. Shouldn't they look at the report and say, "Jeez.. that is BS" before going on the air with it? But we all know why they didn't bother to see if it was true or not.

If they are going to run with an unchecked source, then they need to issue a formal retraction if the source proves incorrect. That's not asking a lot, is it?

For example: "Report came out that has made rounds on the Internet about Bush having an affair with an unnamed White house staffer. Some people say that he paid for an abortion. Is that true? I don't know!"

Beck didn't float the story. He mentioned that there was a story out there, said he didn't know if it was true or not and then went to discuss why he disagreed with the trip and it had nothing to do with the price and everything to do with the president's safety. So it seems that even when you're corrected on the facts, you don't want to accept them. That's very convenient on your part.

Quote:

That's not asking a lot, is it?

I guess it would be about as much as asking you to admit that Beck didn't report anything as he was originally accused of doing in the thread...

For example: "Report came out that has made rounds on the Internet about Bush having an affair with an unnamed White house staffer. Some people say that he paid for an abortion. Is that true? I don't know!"

Don't forget the amount of people who watch them. Shouldn't they look at the report and say, "Jeez.. that is BS" before going on the air with it? But we all know why they didn't bother to see if it was true or not.

If they are going to run with an unchecked source, then they need to issue a formal retraction if the source proves incorrect. That's not asking a lot, is it?

Last I heard the White House only denied it and never provided the cost of the trip. Considering its our money paying for it shouldn't they at least tell us the cost and prove its wrong? That is certainly not asking too much.

You're having an epic fail in this thread now. I suggest you carefully read what you post and respond to while you're ahead.

Here is what Hannity actually said.

Quote:

HANNITY: But here's what is bothersome to me there. There were reports. The initial report came out of the -- I think it was Press Trust of India reporting that it was upwards of $200 million a day. And that there were thousands of people involved.

That they were taken over at least a big portion if not all the Taj -- hotel, Mahal Hotel. And they asked the question, they say it has no basis in reality.

Quote:

HANNITY: But wait, that's what the report is. We can't get any confirmation. That's the point.

This is not reporting. This is citing a report. That the report turned out to be accurate or not is one thing, but there was no "making up" of facts by neither Beck nor Hannity. Shoddy journalism? Maybe, but they aren't journalists. Potential rush to report an unsubstantiated story? Perhaps.

So.. we're arguing over semantics, now? Beck and Hannity are ok, b/c they didn't tecnically make up crap, they just reported made up crap? Fine, you can have your minor point about that. You win there.

The larger point that you won't agree to is that they ran with this story for a simple obvious reason, not even caring if it was true or not. The transcript and Beck's opening from his Nov 4th program all do the same thing: hype a dubious report to bash the President. (BTW, "Beck India Story" search into google found the video. Go ahead and watch it- yes I know where it is from http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201011040033 ) Follow the context of that, plus Hannity's report. They use the information from the report to meet their pre-conceived conclusion. Them saying "I don't know" or "This is the report" doesn't make what they did okay.

My bigger argument is arguing for better reporting, even out of the so called opinion shows. We can't agree to that?

So.. we're arguing over semantics, now? Beck and Hannity are ok, b/c they didn't tecnically make up crap, they just reported made up crap? Fine, you can have your minor point about that. You win there.

Which part of "they weren't reporting" are you having trouble with?

Quote:

The larger point that you won't agree to is that they ran with this story for a simple obvious reason, not even caring if it was true or not.

Running with a story means presenting it as if it has been vetted and verified. Neither Hannity nor Beck did that. Beck didn't even come close. A fact you continue to ignore.

Quote:

The transcript and Beck's opening from his Nov 4th program all do the same thing: hype a dubious report to bash the President.

So Beck saying there is a report and he doesn't know if it is true is hyping a dubious report?

Listen, you're making your bias more and more clear as the thread moves along. If Maddow or Olbermann did the same thing, I am positive you wouldn't have any issue with it.

Quote:

My bigger argument is arguing for better reporting, even out of the so called opinion shows. We can't agree to that?

Further evidence that you're having trouble understanding what the word "reporting" means.

If Maddow or Olbermann did the same thing, I am positive you wouldn't have any issue with it.

I must have missed the current thread where Maddow/Olberman did the same thing and I was defending them. To borrow a phrase from you, "If [insert name of someone conservative here] did the same thing , I am positive you, Rich, wouldn't have any issue with it." Wait, this thread just proved my claim correct.

Rich wrote:

Further evidence that you're having trouble understanding what the word "reporting" means.

11. to carry and repeat, as an answer or message; repeat, as what one has heard. 12. to relate, as what has been learned by observation or investigation. 20. to relate or tell.

Rich wrote:

Listen, you're making your bias more and more clear as the thread moves along

Wow, I didn't know I was the only one in this thread with a bias. I forgot you don't have one.

I must have missed the current thread where Maddow/Olberman did the same thing and I was defending them.

And I must have missed the mutiple ones where you decry the shoddy reporting they do on their opinion shows.

Quote:

To borrow a phrase from you, "If [insert name of someone conservative here] did the same thing , I am positive you, Rich, wouldn't have any issue with it." Wait, this thread just proved my claim correct.

Hmmmm... didn't I refer to Beck as creepy earlier in this thread? Didn't I say:

Oops... looks like you are still failing to read everything before posting...

Quote:

11. to carry and repeat, as an answer or message; repeat, as what one has heard. 12. to relate, as what has been learned by observation or investigation. 20. to relate or tell.

So how does this constitute reporting?

Quote:

The president's upcoming trip to India, and other points from there. Report came out that has made rounds on the Internet about the high cost of this trip. Some people say that it is up to $2 billion for 10 days. Is that true? I don't know!

Quote:

Wow, I didn't know I was the only one in this thread with a bias. I forgot you don't have one.

Since I am neither a conservative nor a fan of Beck or Hannity, I have no skin in this game.

Let's get back on track... the original intent of this thread, 1984, which you blindly supported without reviewing the facts.

The intent of this thread was to criticize Fox News for making up facts regarding the expenses of the Obama trip.

Two problems here...

1. The Fox News hard news segments never reported it and in fact debunked the story

2. Both Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity mentioned the story, but Beck said he didn't know if it was true and Hannity simply said there was a report out and cited the source, but said there was no confirmation, as quoted clearly in the posts above.

That doesn't constitute making up facts.

Here was part of your initial quote:

Quote:

I would love for Beck and Hannity to have to look into the camera and say, I reported false information to you, the viewers. I apologize for the misinformation.

The only problem is they never did this. So, I would love for 1984 to look into his monitor and type "I apologize for accusing Beck and Hannity of reporting misinformation when the reality is that Beck only pointed out that there was a story out there and he didn't know if it was true and Hannity cited a source reporting the story but stated that it had not been confirmed".

And I must have missed the mutiple ones where you decry the shoddy reporting they do on their opinion shows.

Go ahead and report something they said that was on par with this and I'll be glad to rip them.

[quote= "Rich"] Hmmmm... didn't I refer to Beck as creepy earlier in this thread? Didn't I say: Shoddy journalism? Maybe, but they aren't journalists. Potential rush to report an unsubstantiated story? Perhaps. . . Oops... looks like you are still failing to read everything before posting... [/quote]

I read it. "Perhaps" and "Maybe" are way too nice for what they did. It was shoddy journalism, and it was a rush so they can get a punch in on Obama. I called on them to have to issue a retraction. You haven't said they needed to, yet. Let's do that, and end this argument.

Rich wrote:

So how does this constitute reporting?

They did "report" per the defnition. Did they not "relate or tell" the bs story to their audience?

Rich wrote:

Since I am neither a conservative nor a fan of Beck or Hannity, I have no skin in this game. Since you are a liberal and a huge Obama supporter/defender, you do.

You are not an Obama supporter and you quite often attack him on these threads. What positions do you have that are liberal? Do those positions outweigh your conservative positions?

I've called on FOX to make their opinion shows more responsible, which was not the original poster's point.

Rich wrote:

That doesn't constitute making up facts.

I've already conceeded that point.

Rich wrote:

The only problem is they never did this. So, I would love for 1984 to look into his monitor and type "I apologize for accusing Beck and Hannity of reporting misinformation when the reality is that Beck only pointed out that there was a story out there and he didn't know if it was true and Hannity cited a source reporting the story but stated that it had not been confirmed".

This comes to the main point of disagreement. My point is that saying it was "unconfirmed" or "I don't know" doesn't give them a pass for relaying the information. Especially when they use the information to fit their larger argument about Obama which was wasteful spending. It is not like it was reported in isolation.